Narayan S/O Ravaji Salagude vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 December, 2017

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102389/2017

BETWEEN

NARAYAN S/O RAVAJI SALAGUDE
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ASANGI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S KADADEVAR, ADV.)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD,
THROUGH BANAHATTI POLICE STATION.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, SPP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN SESSIONS
CASE NO. 1102 OF 2017 (BANAHATTI P.S. CRIME NO. 2
OF 2017) ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI
FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A), 306
READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
:2:

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner

under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

in connection with Banahatti P.S. in Crime No.2/2017

for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Since

from the date of his arrest, the petitioner is in judicial

custody. Therefore, the learned counsel for the

petitioner is praying for enlargement of the petitioner

on regular bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned SPP for the respondent – State.

3. Whereas, in the complaint, it reveals that

the marriage of the deceased Malashree was

performed with the accused No.1 for about 6 years

back, as per their customs prevailed. Subsequent to
:3:

the marriage, she got issues, a daughter and a son.

For the reason known, that there was some

altercation took between the deceased as well as the

family members i.e., her husband, who arrayed as

accused No.1, her father-in-law, arrayed as accused

No.2 (present petitioner) and the brother-in-law of the

deceased i.e., the accused No.3 started to harass her

physically and mentally, stating that she does not

know how to cook and also she does not do the

household work properly and due to which she

committed suicide by hanging. The same has been

transpired in the complaint and accordingly an FIR

came to be registered by the Police and thereafter

proceeded with the case for investigation.

4. Whereas, the learned counsel for the

petitioner during the course of arguments contended

that the petitioner, who arrayed as accused No.2 and

he being the father-in-law of the deceased, he did not

give any harassment to the deceased. But the
:4:

petitioner being an innocent person, he has not at all

committed the alleged offences and moreover the

allegations made in the complaint, it does not

constitute the ingredients for the alleged offence

punishable under Section 306 of IPC. But on perusal

of the entire materials on record, there is no specific

overt act against the petitioner, extending harassment

to the deceased and also lead her to commit suicide.

But the Police apprehended the petitioner and since

from the date of arrest, the petitioner is in judicial

custody. Whereas, the petitioner’s family consisting

his wife and he is suffering from old aged ailments

and also required to be taken treatment continuously

and if the petitioner is supposed to kept behind the

bar for a longer period, his health will be deteriorated

and his family will be ruined in the society. It is

further contended that the petitioner is ready to abide

by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court,

while granting bail to him. Therefore, on all these
:5:

grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner praying

to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned SPP for the

respondent – State during the course of arguments

contended by reiterating the averments made in the

complaint and also reflection of the averments in the

FIR recorded by the Police relating to the Crime

No.2/2017 of Banahatti PS, alleging that the petitioner

given physical as well as mental harassment to his

daughter-in-law i.e., the deceased and due to which

she committed suicide by hanging at the scene of

crime. As the deceased was given in marriage with the

1st accused and she had a daughter and a son, but for

the reasons that she was not been doing household

work properly and she was not knowing to cook, on

these grounds, the petitioner harassed the deceased

and due to which she committed suicide by hanging

and the petitioner is the cause for the death of the

deceased. Therefore, it appears that there are prima
:6:

facie materials against the petitioner and accordingly,

the learned SPP prayed to reject the bail petition, as

the petitioner does not deserve for the bail as sought

for.

6. As already stated in detail regarding the

contention taken by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, that the marriage of the deceased was

performed with the 1st accused for about 6 years back

and subsequent to marriage, she lead happy marital

life in her husband’s house. She also got a daughter

and a son out of the wedlock. But there was an

allegation made in the complaint that as she was not

doing the household work properly and was not

knowing to cook, the petitioner started to harass the

deceased physically and mentally and due to which

she committed suicide by hanging. Further

subsequent to registration of crime, the Investigation

taken up the case for investigation and laid the charge

sheet in S.C. No.1102/2017 which is pending on the
:7:

file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot

sitting at Jamkhandi relating to the case in Crime

No.2/2017 of Banahatti P.S. for the alleged offences.

However, charge sheet has been laid. Therefore, at

this stage, it is said that it does not require for any

detailed discussion, while considering the bail petition

filed by the petitioner, as there are substance in the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

seeking for the relief of bail. Whereas, the learned SPP

submits that if the petitioner is supposed to be

released on bail, certainly he would come in the way

of prosecution case and would destroy the evidence.

As this apprehension expressed by the learned SPP,

could be curtailed by imposing certain suitable

conditions to safeguard the interest of the

prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as

well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of

the considered opinion that the petitioner is deserving

for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
:8:

ORDER

The bail petition filed by the petitioner under

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is

hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions:

(1) The petitioner shall execute a bond in
a sum of Rs.50,000/- with like sum
surety to the satisfaction of the I
Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Bagalkot, sitting at Jamkhandi, as Crime No.2/2017

where the case in *S.C. No.1102/2017
is pending.

(2) The petitioner shall not tamper or
hamper the case of prosecution
witnesses.

(3) The petitioner shall appear before the
concerned Court on all the dates of
hearing without fail.

(4) The petitioner shall not indulge with
any other criminal activities
henceforth.

*Corrected vide Court order
dated 12.12.2017.

Sd/-

(KSJ)
:9:

If the petitioner violates any of the above

conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands

ceased.

Sd/-

JUDGE
Rsh

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *